Much of what is passed about truth regarding the Catholic Church
is based on myth and sometime bigotry. Find out what the Church really
teaches.

About cwlibrary Tracts

"Catholic
Answers" produced most of The
tracts in this section. Those residing on this site are earlier versions
collected from CIN and other sources at a time when specific permission
to distribute and reproduce the information was granted. Visit Catholic
Answers to obtain the latest tracts and to purchase printed versions.

The (F) appearing after selected tract titles means the tract is part
of the "Fathers Know Best" series and contains a collection of quotes
from the early Church Fathers.

Peter and the Papacy

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in
authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed
the list (Matt.
10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles
were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke
9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt.
18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of
the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28).
On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40),
and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is
Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and
Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel
was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen
Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that
elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the
first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11),
and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first
council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision
(Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles
were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at
the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting,
Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates
as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside
from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew:
Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only
God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the
ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now
on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What
is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the
fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures,
and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new
name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s
name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28),
Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew
youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The
Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Barak "lightning," (Judg.
4:6), Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen.
29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John
were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ,
but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and
it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah,
his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual
name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also
important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea
Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and
named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay
near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall
about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills
of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the
small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found
what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that
Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles.
As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize
the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled
out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by
his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

Promises to Peter

When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So
you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means
Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration
of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples
had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where
Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of
the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was
specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I
tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise
that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for
the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making
of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar
power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys
were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate;
and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given
the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import
is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city.
The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself.
This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22,
Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked
Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance
for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then
Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he
earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically
included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love
me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring
to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed
the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last
time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon,
Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like
wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when
you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke
22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not
fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly
efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Who is the rock?

Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this
rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage
have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To
whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter
itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock
and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems
obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely
the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock
could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to
Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must
relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You
are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier,
while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and
a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is
the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear
if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference
to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

Another alternative

The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers
to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith.
The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone
(Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation.
Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven,
the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter
is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will
remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only
because Christ is the first one.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation
of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev.
21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use
it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect
and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as
having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different
senses.

Look at the Aramaic

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue
that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is
rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone,
while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be
the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic,
the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word
for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note
that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas").
What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this
kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to
Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when
he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word
kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s
name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender.
The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence,
but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a
feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became
Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock
is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were
synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large
rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction
was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see
D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement
was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that
could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with
endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon
this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some
claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though
the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the
passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is
a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough.
Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious
from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say
so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying
text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s
Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence
seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as
he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the
chain of the papacy.